[you continue to CC me personally; is this some sort of sport for you?] On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 02:24:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 10:57:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > In fact, perhaps we ought to re-examine why we even have Debian Policy when > > you can just file bugs and ask people to change things, and then NMU their > > packages if they don't do it. Hmmmm... > > You say this, and then accuse me of setting up straw men? Geez. It isn't very pleasant, is it? I'll stop if you will. > > > Raising this to a "must" doesn't seem to buy anything at all, at the > > > risk of declaring packages unsuitable for release for no benefit to > > > anyone at all. > > It's clearly of benefit for fonts.dir files to be available for fonts that > > are unpacked to the system. Otherwise you can install the fonts, but the X > > server (or font server) don't even see them. [...] > So this just seems a complete non-sequitur to me. I guess this shouldn't surprise me. I'm saying font packages MUST invoke update-fonts-dir in their postinst scripts so that fonts.dir will be available and refer to the font files that have just been unpacked to the system. Otherwise you can install the fonts, but the X server (or font server) don't even see them. If you can't get from point A to point B I'm not sure any further efforts by me to elucidate things will bear any fruit for you. > > > Alternatively, what benefit would anyone see if dosemu, nethack, etc were > > > removed from woody tomorrow? > > Who says they're going to be? Are you going to see to it that they are, as > > release manager? > > If this proposal were accepted right now, then those packages would have > RC bugs against them. > > If they had RC bugs against them, it's entirely appropriate for them to > be removed from the release, that's what RC *means*. As (Acting?) release manager, is it your intention to begin implementing zero-day package removals based on the existence of RC bugs? If so, I think you need to be very clear about this, and mail debian-devel-announce accordingly. Also, you may have missed your chance to yank some/all Debian font packages from the distribution. Anton Zinoviev filed several critical bugs against them recently for invoking mkfontdir without the -e option, which causes encodings.dir files to get clobbered. Hence the new tool, update-fonts-dir, and the mandate on its usage. If, on the other hand, you intend to give package maintainers a reasonable amout of time to fix bugs brought to their attention, then I do not see what is problematic about my proposal. Packages migrate. Those that don't get bugs filed about them. After that I expect the transition to complete. I've already pledged to personally get involved in making sure the font packages that currently exist get migrated, if my help is needed. > Since the proposal isn't accepted (and IMO shouldn't be as it stands), that's > obviously a hypothetical case. Fine, people can continue to clobber encondings.dir files. I imagine non-ISO-8859-1 users are going to be unhappy. (I was unaware of this problem until Anton brought it to my attention.) > Why should splitting font packages be a stronger requirement than splitting > library packages? Why shouldn't it? Shouldn't policy proposals be weighed on their own merits, and not by strength comparisons with unrelated policies? > > I'm getting tired of fighting all the straw men you construct. > > Then why don't you just think about them and try to address them > rationally, rather than assuming this all some sort of drawn out vendetta > against you? Because it's a neverending game of whack-a-mole with you. I address one set of objections, you just spin up a new set. Are you engaged in some sort of psychological research designed to gauge my patience? I would invite you to write your own X font policy revision proposal, but I fear it would just take the form of an amendment to my existing one which simply replaces all "+"'s with "-"'s and vice versa. > > All it > > takes for you to jam the brakes on any of my proposals is to reply to them > > with "I object.", and then I have to go to the technical committee. > > Which, you'll note, I haven't done, and I'm not planning on doing. I get the impression that your falling-sky complaints about it are scaring people away from seconding it, however. Oh well. That's fine. I'm confident that most of the other font package maintainers won't find it objectionable, so I'll make personal appeals to them. -- G. Branden Robinson | <joeyh> oh my, it's a UP P III. Debian GNU/Linux | <doogie> dos it. branden@debian.org | * joeyh runs dselect http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | <Overfiend> that ought to be sufficient :)
Attachment:
pgpeDbuzIN38c.pgp
Description: PGP signature